FW: [civilwarwest] Re: Well I'll be!
I honestly don’t understand how you can’t see the ambiguity in Bearss’s account – the account that your original post concerned, the one in his Vicksburg book.
This illustrates what I meant by “half formed thoughts” – not Bearss’s, but rather yours. All in all, you made good points, but you didn’t make them concisely. Unless you’re just now finding these other Bearss accounts, you would have been better served to make your whole case at the get-go, and I think you would have been better received. It’s something you might want to consider as you write your book on Raymond.
Don’t be so cryptic. Don’t assume everyone knows what you know. I’m talking from experience. It’s not just what you say, it’s how you say it. If it rubs people the wrong way, they’re going to be much less receptive.
From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Tony Gunter
Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 5:08 AM
Subject: [civilwarwest] Re: Well I'll be!
--- In civilwarwest@ yahoogroups. com, "Harry Smeltzer" <hjs21@...> wrote:
> FWIW, I think Tony has provided good evidence to question
> account, though I think he overstates somewhat the degree to whichthe Ohio
> troops have been "maligned". Bearss' words contain some ambiguity,perhaps
> reflective of some uncertainty on his part.I honestly don't see why you feel there's any ambiguity in Bearss
assertion, but if you're still unconvinced then perhaps this
restatement of his assertion from an article he wrote for Blue & Gray
will do the trick:
"The 20th Ohio east of the bridge held its ground, but as the Buckeyes
looked to their right they saw that the 68th Ohio had bolted for the
I will admit that "half-formed thoughts" are at play here, but I would
politely suggest that maybe they were half-formed 20 years ago.